Why is this term in the Constitution: "in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven"? One would think a secular Constituion would have merely stated, 1787 AD, if their intention was truly a secular one (the same applies to the Sunday exception clause in Article 1, Section 7).
Oliver Ellsworth, a Connecticut delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in explaining to the people the clause that prohibits a religious test for public office, stated, "A test in favor of any one denomination of Christians would be to the last degree absurd in the United States. If it were in favor of Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, or Quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of the American citizens for any public office and thus degrade them from the rank of freemen." On swearing to a belief in God at the time of appointment or admission to government office, Ellsworth resolved, "His (an officeholder) making a declaration of such a belief is no security at all. For suppose him to be an unprincipled man who believes neither the Word nor the being of God, and be governed merely by selfish motives; how easy is it for him to dissemble! How easy is it for him to make public declaration of his belief in the creed which the law prescribes and excuse himself by calling it a mere formality."
George Washington warned we should forever be "indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." He went on to add, "With slight shades of differences, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together."
These words by Washington are fighting words to the tyrant. His sole desire in legislative acts is to tear us apart. When accomplished, the resulting turmoils gives him the excuse he needs to grab more power, which he uses to tear us apart even further.
Our Founding Fathers were just as clear that foreign influences should not be allowed to penetrate our laws and moralities; but such influences are typically the very argument used to infringe our traditional religious freedoms.
George Washington blamed this on the dereliction of duty by party factions within government, whether out of ignorance, jealousy or revenge, in that, "It opens the door to foreign influences, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus, the policy and the wills of one country are subjected to the policies and will of another. He went on to warn, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them."
Therefore, Washington not only instructed that we should cherish and maintain our religion and morality, but it is unpatriotic to not do so. He further warned, "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican [representative] government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided instead of a defense against it."
George Washington also warned, "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." But our politicians and judges don't seem to give a damn about that either. Usurpation is a way of life with those scum.
If one stops to take a close look at the degeneration of our country, its laws, and its morals, one must assume George Washington was either extremely wise, or divinely inspired. The tyrant has moved this society into such turmoil, that in the last thirty years, or so, our most sacred freedoms have been eroded. Worse, the turmoil tends to feed the insatiable appetite of the tyrant with the excuses he needs to generate even more turmoil, and more erosion of our freedoms.
No offense to you, the ACLU, or any of the aforementioned scum that have usurped so much power from the people, but I trust George Washington and the Founding Fathers.
Because they were trying to be formal and dignified?
AD is the abbreviation for anno domini, which means -- in the year of our Lord.
Judaism is a fundamental basis to Christianity.
All others are grouped generically as heathen or those guided by lusts and immorality. Pagan and unbelievers are understood to comprise a group not guided to respect morality.
The Separation of Church and State assumes this as premise. It then recognizes tht moral men will seek to obey both the laws of man and the laws of God. Recognizing immoral men will week to obey neither, the principal of Separation of Church and State is irrelevant to the governance of immoral men. Laws on criminality are their domain. Instead the Separation was simply focused on how moral men might reasonably govern themselves.
Moses had appointed lessor judges to assist him in adjudicating the law. There were laws of God provided in Scripture, but also other methods of governance man-made, which assisted God-fearing men in bearing their burden.
From the Inquisition onwards, political thought recognized the impact of the Church as a political force, yet also recognized the rights of the individual. Again the focus was on the moral man. Not the immoral, simply because no amount of legal ethic will suffice for the immoral man because he is rebellious to ethic regardless.
It was only in the last 30-40 years in American jurisprudence that the Separation of Church and State has been demphasized and freedom of religion differently identified to ANY spiritual pursuit.